This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
"After all, there is no such literature as a dictionary"—William Osler.
Reviewing a medical dictionary is not unlike taking on the phone book of New York City. There is so little about much in it that concentration on any one fact, name, or aspect, at best is only casually selective and cannot possibly be representative. Keeping any medical dictionary up-to-date in these rapidly changing times is a labor of love and requires the compulsive drives of editors with a strong, obsessive nature and much physical strength. In spite of Osler's merry words, I am not able to sit down and in cold blood read through a dictionary. I have now used this new dictionary for a number of weeks and have found it very satisfactory. It is cross referenced so that even when an occasional point is not available where first looked for, it can be found by back tracking
Bean WB. Blakiston's New Gould Medical Dictionary. AMA Arch Intern Med. 1957;99(1):159–160. doi:10.1001/archinte.1957.00260010161028
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: